Knots may be far more interesting and useful than just their use with ropes. There was an unexpected connection discovered between knot theory and Burnside groups: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576510/
By having a deeper understanding of knot, we may get a better handle on aspects of group theory which has very close connections to quantum mechanics and string theories. So, whilst you may argue about whether that can be considered "practical", it may lead to a deeper understanding of the matter that we're made of.
Are you sure about that? I just googled for the law and all I could find was a proposed bill by Michael Baumgartner. There looks to be a law for obeying minimum speeds where there are minimum speed limit signs erected, but even then there's an exception for safety reasons, so I expect a cyclist could claim that it would be unsafe for them to pedal at e.g. 50mph.
It sounds odd to me that such a law would be deemed necessary.
Your example misses out the instance when several vehicles arrive at the same time and the roundabout is small enough (e.g. a mini-roundabout - equivalent to a standard T-junction or 4-way junction) that only one car can safely traverse the roundabout at a time.
I just don't understand how you can state that I'm incorrect and then basically repeat the "give way to the right" rule in different language.
Do not bother replying to this as you are just a fool.
Sounds like you're back-pedalling there. You stated "I doubt that's correct" and I've provided a link to the Section 185 of the Highway Code that includes "Always give priority to the traffic coming from the right, unless you have been directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights".
If you think it's just a convenient mnemonic device, maybe you should get the Highway Code re-written to accommodate your views.
In the UK, we drive on the left and go clockwise around roundabouts. If you arrive at a roundabout and there's a car on your right, you're supposed to give way to it unless there's enough room for you to get safely in front of it (without causing them to brake).
Yep, they'd need to make it cheap/free and easy to get software included, but that's probably not what the Microsoft shareholders want.
If they did make it easy for software to be included and updated in their app store then you'd have the more reputable software available from the store (with automatic updates etc) and users would end up preferring to get software via that route.
To change it, they could introduce a full featured package manager (e.g. like Linux uses) which would make it easier for people to install from official repositories than to go elsewhere. It's a shame that they're only starting to do this now that they've seen how much money Apple makes from running their App Store.
I'm not sure that the Windows "Uninstall programs" thing really counts as a proper package manager. I don't think you can use it to install software (except for a few Microsoft examples) and I don't think you can use it to update/upgrade software. I doubt it handles dependencies between software either.
Unfortunately, Windows has trained users to expect to install software from all manner of different internet locations. I think that's the biggest flaw of Windows.
Technically, charges weren't dropped as there haven't been any charges (Swiss law works somewhat differently with regards to charging), but the original arrest warrant (for two allegations - rape and molestation) was withdrawn on 21st August 2010.
However, on 20th November 2010 an international arrest warrant was issued and was upheld by the Swedish appeals court on 20th November 2014. The prosecutors were criticised for not moving the investigation forward and then on 13th August 2015 they dropped the investigations into molestation and coercion as the time limit for those were due to expire (18th August). The rape investigation has until 2020 due to it being a more serious crime, so this story can carry on for a while yet.
It didn't but some rapes are not particularly violent if force isn't involved and harm isn't intended (e.g. drunken sex when the partner is too inebriated to properly give consent). I believe that Assange is alleged to have had sex with the woman when she was sleeping after having refused his advances, so that sounds like rape to me, but not necessarily physically violent. (I certainly don't condone that behaviour, but I can believe that there's other interests at play with Assange).
I didn't know he'd actually been charged with anything. Can you point me towards some more info on that, as a quick search indicates that he hasn't been charged (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382/).
If he has been charged, then your comments about the US would make sense, but if he hasn't been charged, then legally the US wouldn't be able to use extradition and thus the whole conspiracy theories about a Sweden/US secret deal regarding him.
I would imagine not. However, Virgin Media customers are going to be paying substantially more for their service than the extra electricity cost, so I don't think that's going to be a major problem and there is the opt-out if that is a problem to you.
As a Virgin Media customer myself, I think this is a good thing and am perfectly happy with footing the electricity cost (not that I've worked out what that is) if it provides a useful service. Then again, I've been running my wifi router with a secondary unencrypted network for years anyway. It saves giving out keys to friends and I think of it as a kind of pay-it-forwards thing - there's times when I'd want to have access to a free wifi network.
Yup - the lack of citations is a valid criticism. I just dislike the way some people think that signing in means that their opinion is any more valid. There's also the whole issue that free speech requires anonymity in some situations so I try to educate people not to automatically disregard anonymous comment (it's fair enough to disregard them for talking rubbish, though).
There's plenty of good reasons why someone may choose to post as an anonymous coward. Disregarding someone's post because of whether they're signed in or not seems foolish (he may be anonymous because he works for one of the organisations).
To be honest, I wish people spent more time worrying about the children that have already been born rather than arguing about what woman should or should not be allowed to do.
There's plenty of starving, poor children throughout the world and the U.S. is obsessed with arguing the pros and cons about abortion. If it's not your body, then PUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT!
Nope, it's only murder if it's unlawful. As abortions are generally allowed by law, it cannot be murder.
I'd probably also dispute the "living" bit as that would imply independent life and abortions are not generally performed when the baby/foetus is breathing unassisted.
Also, "torn apart"? Where the hell do you live that allows medical procedures like that?
Yielding the road to a faster vehicle? I've never heard of that being a rule of the road. As far as I'm aware, all vehicles have exactly the same priority on public roads (except for emergency vehicles when they've got their lights turned on).
It's not particularly easy to judge the distances in the video due to the wide angle lens (most helmet cams use wide angles), but the UK Highway Code specifies "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" (https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169/).
IMO, a motorist who doesn't politely share the road with other vehicles isn't doing himself or his community any favours.
Here in England, the only roads that were built for cars (motorways) don't allow cycles (or horses or pedestrians) on them. The other roads were built for general pedestrian (we don't have a jay-walking law) and vehicle use. The first "modern" roads were paid for by cyclists groups, so it's ignoring history to claim that the roads are built for cars.
Have a look at http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ for a really good examination of the early history of roads and cars. Most of the car pioneers were also cycle enthusiasts (the earliest cars were pretty much tricycles with a motor fitted).
Slashdot Mirror
Wooooosh!
Please hand in your geek card for not spotting the obvious Blade Runner reference.
I see. That's a shame as it would be more interesting if they'd made some progress with mathematical knots.
Knots may be far more interesting and useful than just their use with ropes. There was an unexpected connection discovered between knot theory and Burnside groups: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15576510/
By having a deeper understanding of knot, we may get a better handle on aspects of group theory which has very close connections to quantum mechanics and string theories. So, whilst you may argue about whether that can be considered "practical", it may lead to a deeper understanding of the matter that we're made of.
Are you sure about that? I just googled for the law and all I could find was a proposed bill by Michael Baumgartner. There looks to be a law for obeying minimum speeds where there are minimum speed limit signs erected, but even then there's an exception for safety reasons, so I expect a cyclist could claim that it would be unsafe for them to pedal at e.g. 50mph.
It sounds odd to me that such a law would be deemed necessary.
Your example misses out the instance when several vehicles arrive at the same time and the roundabout is small enough (e.g. a mini-roundabout - equivalent to a standard T-junction or 4-way junction) that only one car can safely traverse the roundabout at a time.
I just don't understand how you can state that I'm incorrect and then basically repeat the "give way to the right" rule in different language.
Do not bother replying to this as you are just a fool.
Sounds like you're back-pedalling there. You stated "I doubt that's correct" and I've provided a link to the Section 185 of the Highway Code that includes "Always give priority to the traffic coming from the right, unless you have been directed otherwise by signs, road markings or traffic lights".
If you think it's just a convenient mnemonic device, maybe you should get the Highway Code re-written to accommodate your views.
To make it clearer, here's a link to the Highway Code roundabout guidance: http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/news-and-safety-tips/-highway-code-for-roundabouts/
In the UK, we drive on the left and go clockwise around roundabouts. If you arrive at a roundabout and there's a car on your right, you're supposed to give way to it unless there's enough room for you to get safely in front of it (without causing them to brake).
Yep, they'd need to make it cheap/free and easy to get software included, but that's probably not what the Microsoft shareholders want.
If they did make it easy for software to be included and updated in their app store then you'd have the more reputable software available from the store (with automatic updates etc) and users would end up preferring to get software via that route.
In the UK, traffic from the right has priority at roundabouts.
To change it, they could introduce a full featured package manager (e.g. like Linux uses) which would make it easier for people to install from official repositories than to go elsewhere. It's a shame that they're only starting to do this now that they've seen how much money Apple makes from running their App Store.
I'm not sure that the Windows "Uninstall programs" thing really counts as a proper package manager. I don't think you can use it to install software (except for a few Microsoft examples) and I don't think you can use it to update/upgrade software. I doubt it handles dependencies between software either.
Unfortunately, Windows has trained users to expect to install software from all manner of different internet locations. I think that's the biggest flaw of Windows.
Technically, charges weren't dropped as there haven't been any charges (Swiss law works somewhat differently with regards to charging), but the original arrest warrant (for two allegations - rape and molestation) was withdrawn on 21st August 2010.
However, on 20th November 2010 an international arrest warrant was issued and was upheld by the Swedish appeals court on 20th November 2014. The prosecutors were criticised for not moving the investigation forward and then on 13th August 2015 they dropped the investigations into molestation and coercion as the time limit for those were due to expire (18th August). The rape investigation has until 2020 due to it being a more serious crime, so this story can carry on for a while yet.
Here's where I pulled this info from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341/
It didn't but some rapes are not particularly violent if force isn't involved and harm isn't intended (e.g. drunken sex when the partner is too inebriated to properly give consent). I believe that Assange is alleged to have had sex with the woman when she was sleeping after having refused his advances, so that sounds like rape to me, but not necessarily physically violent. (I certainly don't condone that behaviour, but I can believe that there's other interests at play with Assange).
I didn't know he'd actually been charged with anything. Can you point me towards some more info on that, as a quick search indicates that he hasn't been charged (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382/).
If he has been charged, then your comments about the US would make sense, but if he hasn't been charged, then legally the US wouldn't be able to use extradition and thus the whole conspiracy theories about a Sweden/US secret deal regarding him.
I would imagine not. However, Virgin Media customers are going to be paying substantially more for their service than the extra electricity cost, so I don't think that's going to be a major problem and there is the opt-out if that is a problem to you.
As a Virgin Media customer myself, I think this is a good thing and am perfectly happy with footing the electricity cost (not that I've worked out what that is) if it provides a useful service. Then again, I've been running my wifi router with a secondary unencrypted network for years anyway. It saves giving out keys to friends and I think of it as a kind of pay-it-forwards thing - there's times when I'd want to have access to a free wifi network.
Yup - the lack of citations is a valid criticism. I just dislike the way some people think that signing in means that their opinion is any more valid. There's also the whole issue that free speech requires anonymity in some situations so I try to educate people not to automatically disregard anonymous comment (it's fair enough to disregard them for talking rubbish, though).
There's plenty of good reasons why someone may choose to post as an anonymous coward. Disregarding someone's post because of whether they're signed in or not seems foolish (he may be anonymous because he works for one of the organisations).
To be honest, I wish people spent more time worrying about the children that have already been born rather than arguing about what woman should or should not be allowed to do.
There's plenty of starving, poor children throughout the world and the U.S. is obsessed with arguing the pros and cons about abortion. If it's not your body, then PUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH SHUT!
I'm in the UK and don't have a ticket. What does it say?
Prick.
Does that apply to sporting events as well? It must make televising them a lot more difficult.
Nope, it's only murder if it's unlawful. As abortions are generally allowed by law, it cannot be murder.
I'd probably also dispute the "living" bit as that would imply independent life and abortions are not generally performed when the baby/foetus is breathing unassisted.
Also, "torn apart"? Where the hell do you live that allows medical procedures like that?
Yielding the road to a faster vehicle? I've never heard of that being a rule of the road. As far as I'm aware, all vehicles have exactly the same priority on public roads (except for emergency vehicles when they've got their lights turned on).
It's not particularly easy to judge the distances in the video due to the wide angle lens (most helmet cams use wide angles), but the UK Highway Code specifies "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" (https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169/).
IMO, a motorist who doesn't politely share the road with other vehicles isn't doing himself or his community any favours.
Here's a good example of an overly aggressive driver http://road.cc/content/news/159478-video-close-passing-ultra-sweary-driver-takes-tumble-after-chasing-and-kicking/ - worth watching for when the driver tries to kick the cyclist and goes flying.
Here in England, the only roads that were built for cars (motorways) don't allow cycles (or horses or pedestrians) on them. The other roads were built for general pedestrian (we don't have a jay-walking law) and vehicle use. The first "modern" roads were paid for by cyclists groups, so it's ignoring history to claim that the roads are built for cars.
Have a look at http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ for a really good examination of the early history of roads and cars. Most of the car pioneers were also cycle enthusiasts (the earliest cars were pretty much tricycles with a motor fitted).